Posted on 03/19/2006 6:44:46 PM PST by prairiebreeze
THE Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity.
The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since. Followers of Osama bin Laden claim to be taking part in a latter-day “jihad against the Jews and Crusaders”.
The late Pope John Paul II sought to achieve Muslim- Christian reconciliation by asking “pardon” for the Crusades during the 2000 Millennium celebrations. But John Paul’s apologies for the past “errors of the Church” — including the Inquisition and anti-Semitism — irritated some Vatican conservatives. According to Vatican insiders, the dissenters included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
Pope Benedict reached out to Muslims and Jews after his election and called for dialogue. However, the Pope, who is due to visit Turkey in November, has in the past suggested that Turkey’s Muslim culture is at variance with Europe’s Christian roots.
At the conference, held at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, Roberto De Mattei, an Italian historian, recalled that the Crusades were “a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian lands and the Muslim devastation of the Holy Places”.
“The debate has been reopened,” La Stampa said. Professor De Mattei noted that the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Muslim forces in 1009 had helped to provoke the First Crusade at the end of the 11th century, called by Pope Urban II.
He said that the Crusaders were “martyrs” who had “sacrificed their lives for the faith”. He was backed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, who said that those who sought forgiveness for the Crusades “do not know their history”. Professor Riley-Smith has attacked Sir Ridley Scott’s recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as “utter nonsense”.
Professor Riley-Smith said that the script, like much writing on the Crusades, was “historically inaccurate. It depicts the Muslims as civilised and the Crusaders as barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.” It fuels Islamic fundamentalism by propagating “Osama bin Laden’s version of history”.
He said that the Crusaders were sometimes undisciplined and capable of acts of great cruelty. But the same was true of Muslims and of troops in “all ideological wars”. Some of the Crusaders’ worst excesses were against Orthodox Christians or heretics — as in the sack of Constantinople in 1204.
The American writer Robert Spencer, author of A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, told the conference that the mistaken view had taken hold in the West as well as the Arab world that the Crusades were “an unprovoked attack by Europe on the Islamic world”. In reality, however, Christians had been persecuted after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.
CONFLICT OVER THE HOLY LAND
Historians count eight Crusades, although dates are disputed: 1095-1101, called by Pope Urban II; 1145-47, led by Louis VII; 1188-92, led by Richard I; 1204, which included the sack of Constantinople; 1217, which included the conquest of Damietta; 1228-29 led by Frederick II; 1249-52, led by King Louis IX of France; and 1270, also under Louis IX
Until the early 11th century, Christians, Jews and Muslims coexisted under Muslim rule in the Holy Land. After growing friction, the first Crusade was sparked by ambushes of Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius appealed to Pope Urban II, who in 1095 called on Christendom to take up arms to free the Holy Land from the “Muslim infidel”
I hope they are reading this thread.
God "allowed" one, but not the other?
>Maybe because they were to scard to appear in public to >support their brother whom they felt was a nut.
Hmmm his mother and John were not afraid, but mythical brothers were.
Let me ask you where were these brothers at the time of the passover when he was left at the temple at age 13, there is no mention of them in scripture?
How about at the wedding at Cana, again not a word about them?
>Not necessarily. Why would he give her to brothers who did >not believe, until much later, that He was the Christ? >They thought Jesus was nuts. Jesus was the eldest, it was, >until his dying breath, His duty to find the BEST care for >His mother. James, Jude, Joses and/or Simon were not it.
Jewish law at the time was very clear. they must go to a sibling, where is your support for them being afraid?
Also if you read the entire scripture, you will see that two of the men you mentioned were the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas, Simon was Andrew's brother and their father was a fisherman not a carpenter.
You have been well indoctrinated by the Catholic church. It seens that your own members are not sure whether it is Mary or Jesus that was immaculately conceived. I do not care what the Catholic church teaches, the scriptures say otherwise. The word translated "brothers" in Matt 13:55 means "from the same womb." There is an entirely different word for cousin which is what John the Baptist was to Jesus.
>What Protestants think Mary was Immaculately Conceived?
None that I know of, any more.
Calvin and Luther both believed it, but now as far as I know it is onlyh the Catholics that do.
"The Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since. Followers of Osama bin Laden claim to be taking part in a latter-day “jihad against the Jews and Crusaders”."
The Crusades are seen as acts of violence, because that's what they were. It PROVES Christians have a propensity toward violence, just as anyone else. As for our BUDDY, Osama, he is pure violence through and through, and is simply USING The Crusades, as an excuse. Just as rioters look for an excuse to riot. So, don't fall for this self-serving interpretation. He's a nut, and that's the end of the story...
Let's not pretend that the Jews are nothing but paragons of virtue that did nothing but mind their own business, their own prophets were pretty harsh in condemning them. The poor innocent victim simply doesn't apply to any group of people. Like the stories of how native Americans were simply a bunch of pacifistic environmentalists...
I believe if you read comments on the thread you'll learn that the violence you refer to was standard for the time period and in response to Muslim aggression against Christians.
Christians have evolved away from the need for blood-letting over the course of centuries. Most modern Christians try to practice the act of forgiveness...up to a point where a need for self-defense is present. Unfortunately, Islam can't claim that level of raised conscience and civility.
I personally never "fall" for any motives of OBL.
>You have been well indoctrinated by the Catholic church. >It seens that your own members are not sure whether it is >Mary or Jesus that was immaculately conceived. I do not >care what the Catholic church teaches, the scriptures say >otherwise. The word translated "brothers" in Matt 13:55 >means "from the same womb." There is an entirely different >word for cousin which is what John the Baptist was to >Jesus.
There are no less then three words for the word brother in the NT, and "adelphos" does not literally translate to "of the same womb", but that is based on 2 semesters of Grad level NT Greek.
"adelphos" does not literally translate to "of the same womb",
Really? Check it out in Thayer's lexicon.
There are other aspects of the history of the Inquisition that seldom get mentioned; that Torquemada was descended from Jewish converts to Christianity (his grandmother was Jewish, and that the Papal decree did NOT allow him to pursue Jews who practiced their Own faith, only the converts who "secretly" practiced Judaism. Which of course is a slippery slope to all out persecution.
Yes. I totally agree with you. And am quite aware of the violence of the day. Please do not misunderstand, I am not trying to subtily, "Bash," the Catholic Church. I realize this is often a tool used to do so. And you make a very good point regarding Islam. They cannot claim, the raised level of consciousness, as Christians can. We have obviously seen this with the, spoiled brat fits, upon publishing the controversial cartoons...
I was pretty sure that Spain had the largest population of Jews in the European countries. What is your source for saying they were allowed to leave with their wealth?
Although Christians, sinners that they are, fall tremendously short of the mark with regard to their personal conduct, the Bible teaches that we are to love our neighbor as we love ourselves and that this is subordinate only to our love for God.
Islam, however, has a very diffent standard. That of " Mohammed or the sword". Those who foolishly chant that Islam means peace and that the Jihadists have hijacked this " faith" are utterly wrong. The OBM followers ARE what Islam is. Pure and simple. It is the braying postmodernists who pretend that Islam can coexist with the West. Islam means submission. Wake up before it is too late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.